5 ms·

So what if there isn't? I see this trope thrown around a lot. I find it suspiciously vacuous: it seems like an attempt to dress up political opinions as "resear

by jpttsn 9y ago

So what if there isn't? I see this trope thrown around a lot. I find it suspiciously vacuous: it seems like an attempt to dress up political opinions as "research." It's as trite as saying "there is no historical basis for the idea that getting a higher salary is the primary concern of an employee." What would that add to a discussion about wages? If you think corporations should do something differently, why not just say so, and say what?

afthonos 9y ago
Depending on context, it can be important. Too often, corporate behavior is explained by saying that the “only responsibility” of a corporation is to “maximize shareholder value”. The words “only responsibility” are not descriptive, but prescriptive, meant to end debate about the morality of an action. In those contexts, it's useful to know that this is a fiction and a debating trick, not a description of law, natural or human.
- jpttsn 9y ago
  If I say the responsibility of a corporation is to replant the rainforest, or to expand human wisdom, or to entertain the public with a compelling narrative of underdogs beating titans, then I'm clearly just expressing my opinion. The question of what a company "ought to do" is obviously a question of values, not fact. It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" Of course there's no natural or human law that proves blue is my favorite color. So what?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" My original comment is a rebutting of popular opinion with law, is it not?
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      I don't think so; you're rebutting a popular opinion with the absence of law as your argument. Like arguing that "there's no law that says the main character in a movie should be relatable." Technically, of course, you're right. Yet I suspect stressing that fact is a straw man argument. Who really believes companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    At the same time, it's also incredibly tiring to hear shitty behavior by companies excused by saying "shareholder value!" as if that excuses all of it. The people running those companies are still adults, who are still fully responsible for their actions. They should not be excused by something that doesn't actually exist.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I mention it because the following sentence is just thrown casually in this article. Having investors dominate, as Apple does, is a good way of handling one principal-agent problem: getting managers to do right by their owners. See: >Consider first Friedman’s erroneous belief that shareholders “own” corporations. Although laymen sometimes have difficulty understanding the point, corporations are legal entities that own themselves, just as human entities own themselves. What shareholders own are shares, a type of contract between the shareholder and the legal entity that gives shareholders limited legal rights. In this regard, shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees, all of whom also enter contracts with the firm that give them limited legal rights.14 From the previous pdf. Basically these false ideas about the relationship between shareholders and corporation have almost totally permeated modern business discussions. Correcting that misunderstanding may lead to a political discussion (you bring me there later in this comment) but it isn't political in itself. >It's as trite as saying "there is no historical basis for the idea that getting a higher salary is the primary concern of an employee." What would that add to a discussion about wages? I think it would if you also linked some interesting articles about labor movements and how we became disconnected from this history. I understand if you don't find the information interesting [ :'( ] but I did and thought it might add some context to the debate between the two management styles in the article. >If you think corporations should do something differently, why not just say so, and say what? I wasn't sure if my opinion was relevant and was truly just trying to correct an extremely pervasive false belief. However if you want to know, I'd like to see management compensation become more seperated from share value. In my mind a CEO compensation package would involve a base salary and then components that reward the CEO when share prices increase relative to an industry benchmark, when median wage in the firm increases or when employees report more satisfaction or maybe the firms labor retention rate increases? Something that incorporates workers although I'd have to think harder about exactly what metric. And also maybe a component that incorporates some sort of consumer rating. Corporations have responsibilities to their workers, their customers and their shareholders, the idea that the individuals in a company get rewarded for helping only one of those groups in a big problem with our system today (imo).

by jpttsn 9y ago

afthonos 9y ago

Depending on context, it can be important. Too often, corporate behavior is explained by saying that the “only responsibility” of a corporation is to “maximize shareholder value”. The words “only responsibility” are not descriptive, but prescriptive, meant to end debate about the morality of an action. In those contexts, it's useful to know that this is a fiction and a debating trick, not a description of law, natural or human.

jpttsn 9y ago
If I say the responsibility of a corporation is to replant the rainforest, or to expand human wisdom, or to entertain the public with a compelling narrative of underdogs beating titans, then I'm clearly just expressing my opinion. The question of what a company "ought to do" is obviously a question of values, not fact. It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" Of course there's no natural or human law that proves blue is my favorite color. So what?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >It's just tiresome to rebut opinions with "you can't prove that!" or "does the law say so?" My original comment is a rebutting of popular opinion with law, is it not?
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    I don't think so; you're rebutting a popular opinion with the absence of law as your argument. Like arguing that "there's no law that says the main character in a movie should be relatable." Technically, of course, you're right. Yet I suspect stressing that fact is a straw man argument. Who really believes companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value?
- s73ver 9y ago
  At the same time, it's also incredibly tiring to hear shitty behavior by companies excused by saying "shareholder value!" as if that excuses all of it. The people running those companies are still adults, who are still fully responsible for their actions. They should not be excused by something that doesn't actually exist.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

I mention it because the following sentence is just thrown casually in this article. Having investors dominate, as Apple does, is a good way of handling one principal-agent problem: getting managers to do right by their owners. See: >Consider first Friedman’s erroneous belief that shareholders “own” corporations. Although laymen sometimes have difficulty understanding the point, corporations are legal entities that own themselves, just as human entities own themselves. What shareholders own are shares, a type of contract between the shareholder and the legal entity that gives shareholders limited legal rights. In this regard, shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees, all of whom also enter contracts with the firm that give them limited legal rights.14 From the previous pdf. Basically these false ideas about the relationship between shareholders and corporation have almost totally permeated modern business discussions. Correcting that misunderstanding may lead to a political discussion (you bring me there later in this comment) but it isn't political in itself. >It's as trite as saying "there is no historical basis for the idea that getting a higher salary is the primary concern of an employee." What would that add to a discussion about wages? I think it would if you also linked some interesting articles about labor movements and how we became disconnected from this history. I understand if you don't find the information interesting [ :'( ] but I did and thought it might add some context to the debate between the two management styles in the article. >If you think corporations should do something differently, why not just say so, and say what? I wasn't sure if my opinion was relevant and was truly just trying to correct an extremely pervasive false belief. However if you want to know, I'd like to see management compensation become more seperated from share value. In my mind a CEO compensation package would involve a base salary and then components that reward the CEO when share prices increase relative to an industry benchmark, when median wage in the firm increases or when employees report more satisfaction or maybe the firms labor retention rate increases? Something that incorporates workers although I'd have to think harder about exactly what metric. And also maybe a component that incorporates some sort of consumer rating. Corporations have responsibilities to their workers, their customers and their shareholders, the idea that the individuals in a company get rewarded for helping only one of those groups in a big problem with our system today (imo).